In re Parentage of S.I.

Overview

The Second District affirmed the Lake County circuit court's denial of a mother's motions for forum non conveniens transfer to Colombia and her petition to enroll a Colombian custody order. The court held that Illinois remained the more appropriate forum under 750 ILCS 36/207 (UCCJEA) given Illinois's longstanding involvement, and that the mother forfeited key arguments by failing to address the actual bases for the trial court's rulings.

Key Facts

• Child S.I. born January 2021 in Illinois; both parties acknowledged Illinois as home state
• Illinois court entered allocation judgment on August 28, 2023, awarding equal parenting time and joint decision-making, while parties were already in Colombia
• A domestic violence incident occurred in Colombia in September 2023; mother obtained Colombian protective orders and a travel restriction preventing S.I.'s return to Illinois
• Mother repeatedly refused to comply with Illinois court orders to return S.I., resulting in a directed finding of contempt
• Colombian courts entered multiple orders including a Family Commissioner decision and a January 31, 2025, agreed order addressing custody
• Mother filed two forum non conveniens motions and a petition to enroll the Colombian judgment—all denied

Procedural History

Circuit Court of Lake County (No. 22-FA-462, Judge Sharmila K. Manak). Father filed parentage/allocation petition August 2022. GAL appointed. Allocation judgment entered August 2023. Mother's first forum non conveniens motion denied January 29, 2025. Second motion struck April 24, 2025, for failure to appear. Petition to enroll Colombian judgment denied October 1, 2025; reconsideration denied January 22, 2026. Appeal to the Second District, No. 2-26-0084.

Holdings

1. Forum non conveniens (first motion): Under abuse of discretion review, the trial court properly weighed the eight factors of § 207(b) and reasonably concluded Illinois was the more convenient forum given its longstanding involvement, the GAL's appointment, and the fact that S.I.'s extended Colombian residence resulted from mother's willful violations of court orders.
2. Forum non conveniens (second motion): Mother forfeited her challenge by failing to address the actual basis for the ruling—the motion was struck for her failure to appear in person as ordered, not on the merits.
3. Enrollment of Colombian judgment: Mother forfeited her arguments by failing to demonstrate that the Colombian court substantially conformed to UCCJEA jurisdictional standards or adequately considered S.I.'s best interests, which were the trial court's stated reasons for denial.

Legal Principles

• 750 ILCS 36/207 (UCCJEA inconvenient forum): Eight-factor test governs whether a court with exclusive, continuing jurisdiction should decline in favor of another forum.
• 750 ILCS 36/105: Foreign-country custody determinations must be recognized only if made "under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards" of the UCCJEA.
• 750 ILCS 36/206: Prohibits simultaneous custody proceedings.
• In re Marriage of Rickett, 2020 IL App (3d) 180657: Controlling precedent on abuse-of-discretion standard for § 207 motions.
• Vancura v. Katris, 238 Ill. 2d 352 (2010): Forfeiture for failure to address the actual basis of a ruling or support arguments with authority.
• A parent's own willful noncompliance with court orders cannot be leveraged to manufacture a more favorable forum analysis (e.g., child's extended out-of-state residence).

Practical Implications

• Self-created inconvenience is no defense: Courts will not credit forum non conveniens arguments built on a party's own defiance of custody orders—practitioners should emphasize this when opposing transfer motions.
• Enrollment of foreign custody orders requires affirmative proof: A party seeking to enroll a foreign-country order must demonstrate substantial conformity with UCCJEA jurisdictional standards and that the child's best interests were considered.
• Forfeiture risk on appeal: Appellate arguments must squarely address the trial court's stated reasoning; repackaging merits arguments when the ruling was procedural (e.g., striking for non-appearance) will result in forfeiture.
• Early GAL involvement strengthens forum retention: The court heavily relied on the GAL's existing role and institutional knowledge as reasons to retain jurisdiction.
• Allocation judgments as jurisdictional anchors: An agreed allocation judgment explicitly recognizing Illinois jurisdiction and requiring relocation notice strongly supports retaining the case.

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23(b) order—it is not precedential except in the limited circumstances permitted under Rule 23(e)(1). The court's analysis of the § 207 factors is fact-specific and tied to the mother's pattern of noncompliance. The holdings on the second forum non conveniens motion and enrollment petition rest primarily on forfeiture, not substantive analysis, limiting their utility as persuasive authority on the merits of those issues. The court's discussion of whether Colombia substantially conformed to UCCJEA jurisdictional standards is dicta, as the issue was deemed forfeited.